Azzolini v. Watkins’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.2d 897 · 1949
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1976
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 5 U.S.C. § 1004 · 5 U.S.C. § 1006 · 5 U.S.C. § 1009
Relies on United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi · Kabadian v. Doak · Sibray v. United States ex rel. Kupples · Impiriale v. Perkins · Graham v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act, Title 5, U.S.C.A. § 1006 , on which the petitioner relies, requires statutory hearings to be conducted before an examiner appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The hearing in this case, as is customary in all deportation proceedings, was conducted.by an Inspector or Board of Inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. If the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are applicable, the hearing was not properly 'conducted. “The Court feels, however, that this requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to hearings under the Immigration Laws, in the light of the following provision of Subsection (a) of Section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act: ‘Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to 'supersede the conduct of specified classes of proceedings in whole or part by or before boards or other officers specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute.’ “ * * * Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that deportation hearings may be properly conducted by Immigrant Inspectors and that the requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act as to a hearing before specially appointed examiners does not apply.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wolf v. Boyd
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.